Argonne National Laboratory is managed by The University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy

Well-to-Wheels Results of Advanced Vehicle Systems with New Transportation Fuels

Michael WangCenter for Transportation ResearchArgonne National Laboratory

Advanced Transportation WorkshopGlobal Climate and Energy Project

Stanford University, CA, October 10-11, 2005

2

Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Vehicle/Fuel Systems Covers Activities for Fuel Production and Vehicle Use

Vehicle Cycle

Fuel Cycle

Well to Pump

Pump to W

heels

(Under development with support from OFCVT and OPBA)

(Ongoing development since 1995)

3

Petroleum Refining Is the Key Energy Conversion Step for Gasoline and Diesel

Petroleum Recovery (97.7%)

Gasoline and Diesel at Refueling Station

Petroleum Transportationand Storage (99%)

Transportation, Storage, and Distribution of Gasoline (99.5%)

MTBE or EtOH for Gasoline

Petroleum Refining to Gasoline (84.5-86%, Depending on Oxygenates and Reformulation) and Low-S Diesel (87%)

NG to MeOH Corn

WTP Efficiency: Gasoline 80% Diesel 82%

4

Production and Compression Are Key Steps for Gaseous H2 Production

G.H2: gaseous H2L.H2: liquid H2LNG: liquefied natural gasNA: North American nNA: non-North AmericanNG: natural gas

NA NG Recovery (97.5%)

Compressed G.H2 at Refueling Stations

LNG Gasification in Ports

LNG Production (88.0%)

LNG Transport via Ocean Tankers (98.5%)

G.H2 Transport via Pipelines (96.3%)

nNA NG Recovery (97.5%)

Steam or Electricity Export

G.H2 Compression at Refueling Stations (89.5% & 95.0% for NG & Electric)

G.H2 Production (71.5%)

NA NG Processing (97.5%)

nNA NG Processing (97.5%)

NG Transport via pipelines

U.S. WTP Efficiency: NA NG-based 58% nNA NG-based 54%

5

WTW Analysis Is a Complete Energy/Emissions Comparison

As an example, greenhouse gases are illustrated here

6

The GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) ModelIncludes emissions of greenhouse gases

– CO2, CH4, and N2O

– VOC, CO, and NOx as optional GHGs

Estimates emissions of five criteria pollutants– Total and urban separately

– VOC, CO, NOx, SOx, and PM10

Separates energy use into– All energy sources – Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal)– Petroleum

There are more than 2,000 registered GREET users worldwide; GREET and its documents are available at Argonne’s GREET website at http://greet.anl.gov

7

GREET Includes Transportation Fuels from Various Energy Feedstocks

Petroleum

GasolineDieselLPG

NaphthaResidual oil

Natural Gas

CNGLNGLPG

MethanolDimethyl Ether

FT Diesel and NaphthaHydrogen

Nuclear Energy

Hydrogen

Coal Hydrogen

Corn Ethanol

Soybeans Biodiesel

CellulosicBiomass

EthanolHydrogenMethanol

Dimethyl EtherFT Diesel and Naphtha

Residual OilCoal

Natural GasNuclearBiomass

Other Renewables

Electricity

8

GREET Includes More Than 50 Vehicle/Fuel Systems

Conventional Spark-Ignition Vehicles• Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated

gasoline, California reformulated gasoline• Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural

gas, and liquefied petroleum gas• Methanol and ethanol

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independentand Connected• Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel, dimethyl

ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and biodiesel

Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles• U.S. generation mix• California generation mix• Northeast U.S. generation mix

Fuel Cell Vehicles• Gaseous hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, methanol,

federal reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, low sulfur diesel, ethanol, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and naphtha

Spark-Ignition Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Grid-Independent and Connected• Conventional gasoline, federal

reformulated gasoline, California reformulated gasoline, methanol, and ethanol

• Compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas

Compression-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles• Conventional diesel, low sulfur diesel,

dimethyl ether, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, and biodiesel Spark-Ignition Direct-Injection Vehicles

• Conventional gasoline, federal reformulated gasoline, and California reformulated gasoline

• Methanol and ethanol

9

Fuel Economy Values of a 2010 Model-Year Midsize Car (Argonne’s Simulations based on DOE FreedomCAR Goals

10

Hybrid Electric Vehicles Offer Great Market Potentials

• Hybrid sales have been strong since 1999

• All major auto makers have plans to produce and sell hybrids

• Fuel economy gains among hybrid vehicle models vary significantly

• Risk exists that hybrid technologies could be used for vehicle performance

2005 data is through April 2005.

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

280,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005*

Cum

ulat

ive S

ales

Insight PriusCivic EscapeAccord Total

11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

RFG ICEV

Diesel

ICEV

RFG HEV

Diesel

HEVFCV: N

G H2

FCV: H2 f

rom EtO

HFCV: U

S kWh H2

FCV: CA kW

h H2

H2 FCV: R

enew. k

Wh H2

FC HEV: N

G H2

FC HEV: H

2 fro

m EtOH

FC HEV: U

S kWh H2

FC HEV: C

A kWh H

2

FC HEV: R

enew

. kWh H

2

GH

G E

mis

sion

s: g

/mi

PTW WTP

Advanced Vehicle Technologies in General Reduce GHG Emissions

ICE and Hybrid FCV FC Hybrid

12

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

RFG ICEV

Diesel

ICEV

RFG HEV

Diesel

HEVFCV: N

G H2

FCV: H2 f

rom EtO

H

FCV: US kWh H

2

FCV: CA kW

h H2

H2 FCV: R

enew. k

Wh H2

FC HEV: N

G H2

FC HEV: H

2 fro

m EtOH

FC HEV: U

S kWh H2

FC HEV: C

A kWh H

2

FC HEV: R

enew

. kWh H

2

Petr

oleu

m E

nerg

y U

se: B

tu/m

i PTW WTP

Since H2 Is Produced from Non-Petroleum Sources, H2 FCVs Almost Eliminate Petroleum Use

ICE and Hybrid

FCV FC Hybrid

13

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

RFG IC

EVDies

el IC

EVRFG

HEV

Diesel

HEVFCV: N

G H2

FCV: H2 f

rom EtO

H

FCV: US kW

h H2

FCV: CA kW

h H2

H2 FCV: R

enew

. kWh H

2FC H

EV: NG H

2

FC HEV: H

2 fro

m EtOH

FC HEV: U

S kWh H

2

FC HEV: C

A kWh H

2

FC HEV: R

enew

. kWh H

2

Tota

l NO

x Em

issi

ons:

g/m

i PTW WTP

H2 FCVs With Ethanol and Average Electricity Could Increase Total NOx Emissions, But …

ICE and Hybrid

FCV FC Hybrid

14

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

RFG IC

EVDies

el IC

EVRFG

HEV

Diesel

HEVFCV: N

G H2

FCV: H2 f

rom EtO

H

FCV: US kW

h H2

FCV: CA kW

h H2

H2 FCV: R

enew

. kWh H

2FC H

EV: NG H

2

FC HEV: H

2 fro

m EtOH

FC HEV: U

S kWh H

2

FC HEV: C

A kWh H

2

FC HEV: R

enew

. kWh H

2

Urb

an N

Ox

Emis

sion

s: g

/mi PTW WTP

H2 FCVs With NG, Ethanol, and Renewable Electricity Reduce Urban NOx Emissions

ICE and Hybrid FCVFC Hybrid

15

A Path from Conventional Technologies to Hybrids and Then to Fuel Cells Can Help Achieve Zero GHG Emissions

0 100 200 300 400 500

Renew. Electro. H2 FCV

Cell. EtOH-to-H2 FCV

NG Distributed H2 FCV

Diesel HEV

Gasoline HEV

CI Diesel Vehicle

Current GV

Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions (g/mi.)

Well to PumpPump to Wheel

Oil

Natural Gas

Non-Fossil Domestic

16

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Middle East North America Other Total

Bill

ion

Bar

rels

Cru

de E

q

Conventional OilUnconventional Oil

North America Has Relatively Little Conventional Oil But 30% of Unconventional Oil Reserves

17

WTP GHG Results Show That Oil Sands Operations Are Carbon-Intensive

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

Conv.

Crude

Gaso

line

OS Gaso

line:

mining, NG

OS Gaso

line:

Mini

ng, Coa

l

OS Gaso

line:

Mini

ng, Nucle

ar

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, NG

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, Coa

l

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, Nucle

ar

OS Gaso

line:

mining, NG

OS Gaso

line:

Mini

ng, Coa

l

OS Gaso

line:

Mini

ng, Nucle

ar

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, NG

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, Coa

l

OS Gaso

line:

In-si

tu, Nucle

arWTP

GH

Gs

Emis

sion

s, G

ram

s/bb

l

Low H2 Use for Upgrade High H2 Use for

18

Electricity

? here means optional

Emissions

Natural Gas

Air Separation

Natural Gas Electricity

Oxygen

Syngas Production

Synthesis

Product Refining

Steam

Water

Emissions

Emissions

Emissions

Steam

Diesel, Naphtha, etc.

ElectricityGeneration

?

?

There Are Several Major Projects of Building Plants for Fischer-Tropsch Diesel From Natural Gas

19

WTW GHG Emissions Results of NG-Based FTD in g/mmBtu

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

CD-350ppm S

ULSD-15ppm S

FTD SA FTD kWh FTD Steam

PTW WTP

20

U.S. Fuel Ethanol Production Has Experienced Large Increases, and the Trend Will Continue

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Mill

ions

of g

allo

ns

Actual ProductionEnergy Bill Requirement

Source: Renewable Fuels Association

21

Ethanol WTP Pathways Include Activities from Fertilizer to Ethanol at Stations

Agro-Chemical Production

Corn Farming

Refueling Stations

Agro-Chemical Transport

Corn Transport

Transport, Storage, and Distribution of Ethanol

Electricity (Cellulosic Ethanol)

Woody Biomass Farming Herbaceous Biomass Farming

Woody Biomass Transport Herbaceous Biomass Transport

Animal Feed (Corn Ethanol)

Ethanol Production

U.S. WTP Efficiency: Corn-based EtOH 60% Cellulosic EtOH 41%

22

GREET WTP Analysis Shows Positive Energy Balance Value for Corn Ethanol But Negative Energy Balance Value for Gasoline

23

Most of the Recent Corn EtOH Studies Show a Positive Net Energy Balance

-120,000

-100,000

-80,000

-60,000

-40,000

-20,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Net E

nerg

y Va

lue

(Btu

/gal

lon)

Ho

Marland&Turhollow

Pimentel

PimentelKeeney&DeLuca

Lorenz&Morris

Shapouri et al.

Wang et al.

Agri. Canada

Kim&DaleGraboski

Wang

Pimentel

Shapouri et al.

Pimentel&Patzek

Weinblatt et al.

NR Canada

Chambers et al.

Patzek

DelucchiKim&Dale

Energy balance here is defined as Btu content a gallon of ethanol minus fossil energy used to produce a gallon of ethanol

24

Corn EtOH Reduces GHGs by 18-29% While Cellulosic EtOH Yields 85-86% Reduction, on Per Gallon Basis of EtOH Used

GHG Emission Reductions Per Gallon of Ethanol to Displace An Energy-Equivalent Amount of Gasoline

-26%-18%

-85%

-29%-21%

-86%

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

E10 GV: DMCorn EtOH

E10 GV: WMCorn EtOH

E10 GV: Cell.EtOH

E85 FFV: DMCorn EtOH

E85 FFV: WMCorn EtOH

E85 FFV: Cell.EtOH

25

Most Studies on GHG Emissions Show GHG Emission Reduction by Corn EtOH as Compared to Gasoline

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EPA (1990

): E100

EPA (1990

): E85

Ho (199

0): E10

0

Marland

(199

1): E10

0

Delucch

i (199

1): E10

0

Ahmed

(1994

): E100

Delucch

i (199

6): E95

Wang (1

996):

E100

Wang (1

996):

E85

Wang (1

997):

E85

Agri. C

an. (1

999):

E85

Delucch

i (200

1): E90

Wang (2

003):

E85

Deluchi (2

003):

E90

Wang (2

005):

E100

Kim&Dale

(2005):

E100

NR Can

ada (2

005):

E100

GH

G C

hang

es

26

Of the 11.8 Billion Bushels of Corn Produced in U.S. in 2004, About 12% Was Used for Ethanol Production

The U.S. produced 3.41 billion gallons of fuel ethanol in 2004, equivalent to 2.28 billion gallons of gasoline

In 2003, the U.S. consumed 134 billion gallons of gasoline and 39 billion gallons of on-road diesel fuels

Source: ERS/USDA, 2004, Feed Outlook (in RFA, 2005); EIA

Feed/Residual: 56.4%

Export: 18.5%

Ethanol: 11.7%

High Fructose Corn Syrup: 5.2%

Starch: 2.7%

Sweeteners: 2.2%

Cereal/Other: 1.8%

Beverage/Industrial Alcohol: 1.3%

Seed: 0.2%

U.S. Corn Usage by Segment 2004

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

products in

dustry w

astes

Forest g

rowth

Fuel tre

atmen

ts (fo

restla

nds)

Logging and other

residues

Urban wood resid

uesFuelw

ood

Fore

st

A Recent Study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Concludes 1.3 Billion Tons of Biomass Available in U.S. Per Year

0

100

200

300

400

Perennial

crops

Corn stover

Grains to

biofuels

Wheat straw

Soybeans

Other crop res

idues

Other resid

uesManures

CRP biomass

Small grain res

idues

Mil.

dry t

ons p

er ye

ar

Total: 998 mil. Dry tonsTotal: 368 mil. Dry tons

28

Argonne Evaluated Bio-EtOH, Bio-FTD, and Bio-DME from Six Production Options for the RBAEF Project

1. bio-EtOH /GTCC

3. bio-EtOH /Rankine

5. bio-EtOH /bio-FTD /GTCC

7. bio-EtOH /protein /Rankine

9. bio-DME /GTCC

11. bio-FTD /GTC

Feed Pretreatment CBP Separation

WWT

Power Plant: Gas and/or Steam

Turbine

Fuel Ethanol

SteamElectricity

Protein

Gasification Fuel Synthesis

Gas Cleanup

FTD, DME

Power Plant: Gas Turbine

SteamElectricity

Residual gas

Feed

29

The Six Biofuel Production Options Result in CO2 and GHG Emission Reductions

Relative Reductions

(%) Fuel: Fuel Production Options CO2 GHGs

Bio-DME: DME/GTCC 94.9 83.3

Bio-FTD: FTD/GTCC 95.6 84.7

Bio-FTD: EtOH/FTD/GTCC 96.4 87.4

Corn E85

33.3 20.1

Bio-E85 : EtOH/ GTCC 70.9 60.9

Bio-E85: EtOH/ Rankine 69.7 60.2

Bio-E85: EtOH/FTD/GTCC 70.1 62.9

For GHGs

More than 80% reduction with Bio-FTD and –DME

More than 60% reduction with Bio-E85

With 100% Bio-fuel, GHGs reductions are 82-87%.

Per gallon of gasoline equivalent

30

Products Per Ton of Biomass Offer Large Energy and GHG Benefits by Displacing Petroleum Fuels, Petroleum Chemicals, and Conventional Power

In Btu per ton of biomass

Less fossil use results in less GHGs

In grams per ton of biomass

31

Concluding Remarks

With new transportation fuels, WTW analyses become necessary for comparing vehicle/fuel systems

Both vehicle efficiencies and new transportation fuels can play a major role in reducing transportation’s energy use and emissions

While efficiency gains for vehicles with fossil fuels offer incremental GHG benefits, vehicles with renewable fuels offer great GHG reductions